PING Wants Groove Rule Change Abandoned

So nice to see the manufacturers agreeing on something. Just a little late, no?

PING Chairman & CEO John Solheim calls for new groove rule to be abandoned, not delayed

June 29, 2009; Phoenix Arizona: PING Chairman & CEO John Solheim, who has adamantly opposed the USGA and R&A New Groove Rule since first proposed February 27, 2007, released the following statement today from the company’s Phoenix, Arizona headquarters:

"The new groove rule harms the game and golfers and should be dropped. The recent uproar about it from PGA Tour players demonstrates this fact,” said Solheim. “However, the PGA Tour's proposal to delay implementing the rule is not a solution. You can't turn a bad idea into a good one by waiting an extra year to adopt it. We hope everyone who cares about the future of this game keeps that simple concept in mind."

A summary of Solheim’s concerns that were shared with the USGA and R&A since the New Groove Rule was proposed is attached.

Here goes...bandwith is cheap!

SUMMARY OF PING’S OPPOSITION TO THE NEW GROOVE RULE

Set forth below is a summary of some of the points PING made to the USGA and the R&A during the time they were evaluating whether to adopt the new groove rule:

1. It is simply wrong to place the potentially biased concerns of a small number of Tour professionals above the needs of tens of millions of amateurs. Why are amateurs being needlessly harmed and told to reach into their pockets to pay for an alleged problem that the USGA believes applies to just the PGA Tour? The PGA Tour has undergone tremendous economic growth and success over the past decades, in concert with golf club innovation. Innovation is one of the oldest and most important traditions of golf. Professionals who get their clubs for free should not be causing the rulemaking bodies to force amateurs to buy new clubs.

Well of course we know that's totally misleading, but continues...

2. Once the rulemaking bodies approve a golf club, it should remain approved.

Golf needs respected and responsible rule makers. Respect is earned -- and it can easily be lost. Tens of millions of golfers purchased hundreds of millions of irons and wedges based on the fact that the rulemaking bodies said these clubs conformed to the rules. It simply is not fair to say to the golfing public, "You know those clubs you bought, the ones we said conformed to the rules? Well, we changed our mind. Sorry about that, and you will need to get some new ones." This not only harms amateur golfers, but it damages the respect many have for the USGA and the R&A.

Golfers respect the USGA and R&A?

3. The skill of driving accuracy continues to be richly rewarded. In proposing this roll back of the Rules, the USGA stated: "The skill of driving accurately has become a much less important factor in achieving success while playing [on the PGA Tour] than it used to be...." That statement is not correct. The data from recent US Opens and from

PGA Tour events (including its improved ShotLink data - which was ignored by the USGA) establishes that there remains a significant penalty from landing in the rough. In fact, the USGA is able to define, and obtain, the level of penalty ("Cost of Rough") it desires through its course set-up. Any tournament is free to do the same. ShotLink data also establishes that accurate drives at PGA Tour events continue to result in the ball ending up much closer to the hole after the second shot (a true measure of an accurate shot). In short, there continues to be a significant penalty from hitting into the rough, even for the best players in the world.

I'm so glad Max Behr isn't alive to read this.

4. In targeting grooves, the rulemaking bodies ignored numerous changes that likely impacted the game over the past 30 years. It is nearly impossible to conclude that a single variable (grooves) caused any observed changes to the game at the PGA Tour level over the past twenty five years. To attempt to do so requires that you ignore all of the other changes to the game since 1984 (the year square grooves were allowed), including the following: course conditioning changes, driver improvements (such as large-headed drivers made with exotic materials), shaft improvements, improved golf balls and golf ball cover materials, improved agronomy, increased athleticism, improved player conditioning, improved player training aids, launch angle fitting and even improved coaching. As an example, tremendous course-conditioning changes have occurred on the PGA Tour since the 1970's. According to historical PGA Tour Course Conditioning Guidelines, since the 1970's the length of the primary rough has been reduced by as much as 60%. The height of the intermediate rough (also described as the first cut), is now as short as some fairways used to be. The grass on the fairways & greens is also shorter. If the USGA/R&A are concerned whether PGA Tour pros find it too easy to hit out of the rough, why didn't they focus on changes to the PGA Tour's course set-up guidelines? If the PGA Tour's set-up guidelines were reviewed, why weren't they mentioned in any of the reports? It is unfair to make amateurs buy new clubs, just so PGA Tour pros can continue to play courses without the deeper roughs yesterday's pros were forced to tackle.

Oh that's good stuff there. Roughs are down! The boys have it easy. Sadly, that might actually click with some.

5. The "money list/driving accuracy" rank correlation analysis cited by the USGA to justify its change in grooves is fundamentally flawed. The downward pattern in this correlation cannot be tied to the introduction or increased use of square grooved irons. We believe it is more closely linked to PGA Tour player behavior than the introduction of any particular equipment innovation. We undertook extensive statistical analysis of publicly available PGA Tour data. We quickly discovered the number of tournaments played annually by the top 10 money earners has been gradually decreasing since about the mid-1990’s. In fact, the number of PGA Tour events with 3 or more of the top 10 money earners in the field has dramatically decreased since the 1980's. The decreasing trend in participation by the top money earners at PGA Tour Events closely mirrors the decreasing trend in the money list/driving accuracy rank correlations, and could be the cause of it. All of this was demonstrated, graphically and otherwise, in my letters to the USGA.

Now that is interesting.

6. The USGA has not demonstrated that any change in any PGA Tour statistic is due to grooves. If the rule making bodies believe that grooves are wreaking havoc on the PGA Tour, why is it that among the hundreds of statistics kept by the PGA Tour, no one has ever deemed it worthwhile to identify the specific grooves each individual PGA Tour Pro is using in his irons and wedges. If grooves truly are a problem, it seems obvious that someone would gather and analyze this easily obtainable data before telling tens of millions of golfers the USGA is reversing its prior approval of hundreds of millions of golf clubs. The failure to do so suggests there may be something else going on here.

Yeah the ball flies too far!

7. What happens to hundreds of millions of "Used" golf clubs - which have always been an important asset in golf. I believe it is important to many golfers, particularly PING customers, that their used clubs maintain a great trade-in value, often for twenty or more years. I am concerned that declaring that hundreds of millions of previously approved clubs will later be non-conforming will impact the resale value of those clubs. It is wrong to diminish the value of these previously approved clubs purchased by hardworking men and women simply because a few Tour pros (who get their clubs for free) seem to complain that "golfers today have it too easy." I do not know of a single golfer who quit playing the game because "it became too easy." This new rule will also harm the tradition of passing clubs to children and grandchildren. Used clubs are also an affordable way for many beginners to give the game a try. These concerns may not resonate with some, but they mean a lot to many who love this game and want to pass the passion for golf on to the next generation. Again, are we throwing all of that away simply so the PGA Tour can keep its rough shorter than it used to be?

Hey, I still have a set of Ping Eye2's in the closet John. Care to buy them from me?

Groovy Goings On...

...assuming you like tales of big egos, big money and big power plays.

The PGA Tour Policy Board votes Tuesday whether to adopt the 2010 condition of competition requiring the use of new grooves. As Alex Miceli reported Friday, three of four player votes are likely going to say no to adopting the condition for January play.

That means in order to uphold the PGA Tour's original stance in support of the USGA/R&A groove spec change, the five non-player policy board reps would have to overrule the player directors. Most insiders believe this has never occurred in the history of the policy board.

Because it's Congressional week and I try not to contemplate the idea of watching golf played there, let's consider the possible votes and ensuing fallout should the policy board postpone the implementation until 2011:

• Postponement would be a hit to Tim Finchem's perceived power or at least, the assumption that he has control of the policy board. Finchem has made several public statements in support of the groove change. Having to spin a reversal at this late date will test Ponte Vedra's For Immediate Release wordsmiths.

• A blow to the USGA/R&A. For obvious reasons. They'll have to retreat from their 2010 implementation at the U.S. Open and can expect to face a full assault, and perhaps even legal action. Bomb and Gouge summed it up better than I in this post.

• Postponement would be a major victory for Titleist and Wally Uihlein. Several players have told me that master wedge designer Bob Vokey has not yet come up with a replacement groove configuration to his and Titleist's liking. Couple that ongoing research with Acushnet not feeling it will have enough time to properly develop a ball they believe is to their standards and soft enough to satisfy players who would be shifting to less-helpful grooves come January, and you begin to understand why this has become an issue (and why there was Ian Poulter's recent Twitter whining).

• Postponement could be a major blow to the image of PGA Tour pros depending on how it's spun. Shoot, some have already likened this to golf's version of steroids. If the players need more time to prepare for the changeover, I think they'll be shocked at the apathy and even hostility they face from serious golf fans. Media types have been asking since last fall what players were doing to prepare and most had not given the subject any thought. Curiously, the Nike guys seem very prepared and many of the more thoughtful players have done their homework. (Cink here, Woods here, Immelman/Mickelson/Furyk here, Ogilvy here.)

• Tough questions would be raised about the policy board's motives. The three players leaning toward a no vote all play the Titleist ball. Ironically, all three stand to benefit from the rule change based on the USGA's theory of forcing a softer ball into the hands of players. David Toms, Brad Faxon and Zach Johnson aren't the longest hitters in the world but all are respected for shotmaking and short game prowess. They will be expected to make convincing arguments about the strength of the USGA's research and implementation if they hope to deflect inevitable criticism. Doable, but also a lot of headache and annoyance they don't need.

• A huge setback for the new groove configuration. Many behind-the-scenes types roll their eyes at this latest chapter in the grooves saga because they insist that the policy board would only be postponing the inevitable. I don't agree. This is bifurcation and I've never understood how the manufacturers would allow this precedent to be set without a fight. We discussed this several times (including here, here). If the board postpones, I predict that over the next year we will see the USGA's research scrutinized, attacked and we'll witness an all-out PR assault on the decision. You'll hear questions--some very legitimate--about just how many players were interviewed, how many were involved in testing, how wet newspaper shreddings simulate rough, how bifurcation is good for the sport and how exactly the USGA concluded that driving accuracy declined because of grooves instead of say, 22 yard wide landing areas.

If the board adopts the condition of the competition, it's a clear victory for Finchem, the USGA, R&A and fans of the flyer lie. Consider how many golf courses and tournaments were already improved this year by having less rough in anticipation of the rule change (along with common sense kicking in). More of that starting in 2010 is good for the PGA Tour, even better if the less-rough mentality filters down to the everyday game.

If you are in favor of regulating distance for the safety, function and interest of golf architecture, you have to love the equipment rollback precedent set by the groove rule change. But big money is at stake here and I'd be shocked if certain manufacturers go quietly.

At least after Tuesday night we'll know who the most powerful man in golf is.

Groove Measuring Methodology And Timing

One of the main PGA Tour/manufacturer gripes with the USGA/R&A groove rule change--now endangered for 2010 implementation--deals with the assertion that the USGA fell behind in getting manufacturers an appropriate measuring tool to determine if irons are conforming.

I know this isn't the sexiest topic, but it is important to understand how this process played out so that should the PGA Tour delay the groove condition of competition due to manufacturer concerns, we at least know how much time they had to prepare. So I asked Dick Rugge of the USGA for his response to the claim of not enough time:

1. The August 5, 2008 Notice to Manufacturers regarding the new groove rule implementation included a detailed explanation of how grooves would be measured.

2. The August 5, 2008 Notice to Manufactures also included the following information: “Measurement of grooves for cross sectional area and groove edge radius can be made with the same tracing equipment that the USGA has used for a number of years. The USGA may also make use of additional measuring equipment for this purpose in the future. A field test to enable groove measurements on-site has been developed. The protocol for this field test will be published in the near future.”

3. The ContourReader (that’s the “tracing equipment that the USGA has used for a number of years”) groove measurement procedure has been made available to those requesting it.

4. Both the USGA and the R&A have purchased a device from the Alicona company that utilizes a very sophisticated microscope to measure grooves. This has been considered our “gold standard” measurement device. That company has offered their equipment for sale to club manufacturers. The cost is high, so there will likely be a limited number of these in use.

5 We have developed a field test device which uses a flat-bed scanner to accurately record the groove cross-sectional shape. This device has been reviewed by PGA Tour rules official John Mutch, who is pleased with its function. This device will soon be made available to the Tours, and to other appropriate organizations, including manufacturers.

"Unfortunately, the only uncertainty in the game right now lies with who's in charge of it."

GolfDigest.com blogging duo Bethpage and Garden City kick around the power struggle over a groove rule condition of competition and ultimately determine that the USGA has handed over power to the PGA Tour and that the uncertainty over 2010 implementation has the USGA acting as a follower instead of a leader.

I can tell you this, though: The rule as currently written will not be a hardship for the playing of the game by average golfers in any meaningful way, shape or form. Not now, not in 2014, not in 2024, not ever. The rule as currently written does present the possibility for uncertainty in the minds of the best players in the game, however. Uncertainty (or as most of us know it, outright fear), I think, makes for a better game at the elite level.

Unfortunately, the only uncertainty in the game right now lies with who's in charge of it.

"The great thing about this game is the fact that we have the same set of rules for everybody."

Thanks to reader jmr for this report on Dick Rugge's webcast appearance with Andy North. I guess since Andy is asking serious questions, I'm going to have to lay off him for at least a month.

While I still support the groove rule change (I know, you're relieved with that clarification), the bifurcating of golf keeps me wondering why we couldn't have done it with the ball first.

Andy North just destroyed Dick Rugge! Just eating lunch, watching the open webcast and Dick Rugge comes in the booth to talk about the new groove rules. Rugge explains that the condition will apply on Jan. 1 2010 for pros, and 2024 for ams. Andy North asks, "So if I have a favorite wedge will I have to get a new one?" Rugge says, "Yes, but only if you're a pro." Andy then asks, "So I guess I'll need 2 different sets of clubs then." Rugge nervously answers in the affirmative.

It gets better. The very next question asks Rugge about conforming clubs . . . the first sentence out of his mouth was, "The great thing about this game is the fact that we have the same set of rules for everybody." This is literally the very next comment after his stumbling bifurcation explanation. Ummm, Dick . . . 2 rules, same rules, 2 sets, 2010, 2024? Not the same game, not the same rules, not a clue about fixing this game.

North also commented on the balls going too far and that they needed to spin more (a common thought from those with experience and/or common sense). Rugge's explanation? "Driving distance has actually flatlined for 6 years on tour." Thanks Dick -- now that 80% of classic courses were destroyed about 8 years ago with the new ball and titanium face, its nice to know that the USGA has full control. Andy North +1, Dick Rugge and the USGA -100.
06.19.2009 | Unregistered Commenterjmr

Star-Ledger Answers Ball Rollback Question!

Jenny Vrentas of the Newark Star-Ledger profiles Dick Rugge, USGA testing and offers this on how a ball rollback could work...sure sounds easier than the groove rule change!

At the beginning of the decade, professionals on tour converted from wound balls to the solid-core, multi-layer models that reign today. Another way to drop maximum driving distance is to change the polymers that make up these interior layers. Doing so affects something called the coefficient of restitution, which is a measure of how well the energy from the swing is transferred to the ball. A higher coefficient means more energy is transferred and the ball travels farther. But the composition of the polymers can be modified for a less efficient energy transfer and shorter maximum driving distance.

Poulter: "the usga are insane to make us change so quickly."

It was only a matter of time before a player would elaborate on the manufacturers concerns about grooves. In this case, it's Ian Poulter of England, Orlando and Cobra Golf fame. Thanks to reader Manny for the Tweeted comments from Poulter, writing a series of posts about the new groove rules soon after Adam Barr's report that Acushnet is trying to delay the rule change:

i tested the new grooves with vokey in feb. what a difference no spinnnnnn. the usga are insane to make us change so quickly.

i guess they were all bored sitting around that table drinking coffee and smoking cigars... get a life let us have fun on the course

it will cost the manufacturers millions to develop and distribute to all the stores global, so you AMs can get them before open qualifying

Our irons already comply, but wedges need to change for start of the year. all the best... thanks R&A and USGA softer balls here we come

The players have had plenty of time to experiment and when I've asked manufacturer reps, most players have taken little interest in experimenting, preferring to wait until this fall.

The manufacturers are pleading financial hardship because they are being forced to develop and ship new grooved wedges to their most loyal customers, who, if they are serious about tournament play, have to buy.

They've been handed a nice serving of forced planned obsolescence and they are still complaining?

"According to a Titleist official, the company is trying to persuade the Tour to hold off on its plans to adopt a condition of competition that would require new groove cross-sections"

Remember a few weeks ago when Greg Norman mentioned rumors that the groove rule change was in doubt? You had to figure the Shark wasn't just throwing that out for attention.

Adam Barr reports that Titleist/Acushnet is trying to convince the PGA Tour to postpone their planned 2010 adoption of a condition of competition requiring conforming grooves in response to the USGA/R&A decision.

Still, all the major manufacturers claim to be ready to proceed with the effective date for the condition of competition the Tour wants to adopt, which is Jan. 1. (Beyond the Tour, the rule would apply to any club manufactured after that date, but clubs made before then will be permissible for use for recreational players until 2024.) Even so, Titleist is asking the Tour to push the rule implementation date back a year because of the intricacies of fitting players under the new groove rules.

None of the major manufacturers would speak on the record for this story. But sources close to the situation have said that the refitting process will be much more complicated than switching out some “old” wedges for new ones. It has been suggested that the performance of wedges with new grooves might even require swing changes, which could lead to the use of a different ball model and, in turn, encourage a driver switch. In other words, the ripple effect of the groove rule could be felt throughout the entire bag. That has some manufacturers and players thinking they need more time to experiment and adjust than the post-season stretch usually reserved for incorporating such new equipment.

So much work drama! Over some grooves. Who knew?

So these big, all knowing manufacturers can't keep up with the USGA now?

“Some manufacturers have said they’re not going to be ready [for the change],” said PGA Tour player Brett Quigley, a member of the Player Advisory Committee. “[But] there’s also the argument that players won’t test until they have to. So why wait another year until 2011? Guys still won’t bother to do it.”

This is really funny:

Of course, players these days won’t stand for any loss of yardage off the tee from the new generation of higher-spinning balls, said the ball manufacturer source. That will be the chief engineering challenge, he said.

"These [current] guys have never hit fliers in their lives."

Steve Elling looks at Jack Nicklaus's endorsement of the groove rule change after initially dismissing the grooves rollback as "throwing a deck chair off the Titanic."

Nicklaus said he had a lively conversation on that subject with a fairly decorated fellow traveler, Tom Watson, at a tournament function this week, in fact.

"Watson was saying last night that he had been fiddling around with some new clubs and played with them most this year, actually, with the new grooves," Nicklaus said. "He said, 'Man, did I hit some fliers last week.'

"These [current] guys have never hit fliers in their lives. They are going to say, 'I don’t want to do that anymore. I am going to hit the ball in the fairway.' Or they are going to have to learn how to play fliers."

"Our testing showed me that the majority of PGA Tour distance increases attributable to equipment have likely come from changes in the driver, not the ball"

There have been a couple of good pieces on technology-related issues and both struck me as interesting because we've crossed a threshold of some kind where no one seems to be scared to write about the subject any longer. Perhaps that's a testament to how the discourse has evolved or maybe it's simply a matter of writers finally taking more interest in the impact side of the issue.

Either way, here's what John Paul Newport wrote in Saturday's Wall Street Journal about persimmon v. titanium:

But how much have we really gained? This is a philosophical question with no definitive answer, but you can’t say my father-in-law didn’t have fun with his wooden clubs. He was a life-long avid golfer, which fact I couldn’t help but reflect on last weekend when our family toured the Amish country in central Pennsylvania. The most observant Amish (a Christian Mennonite sect) really do still drive around in horse-and-buggies and live in houses with little or no electricity. My fascinated 14-year-old daughter spewed forth factoids from the Internet that she pulled up on a BlackBerry. “The Amish don’t have phones in their houses because they want to encourage face-to-face conversations,” she read. “They don’t allow tractors because they want their farms to remain human-scale.” In other words, they’ve decided what they want of the modern era (they can use phones outside the home and avail themselves of modern medical technology) but reject what doesn’t contribute to the values they hold highest.

I’m not tempted to adopt the Amish lifestyle, believe me, but I’m not sure I’d mind going back to wooden clubs and less modern balls, provided everyone else did the same. (You can keep balata, which cuts too easily.) In terms of challenge, based on my experience, there really isn’t that much difference between the old and the new. Trying to keep a short, spinny ball in play with a wooden driver is not easy, but it’s no more formidable a task than trying to keep a longer ball in play with a metal driver.

Mike Stachura was inspired by Chad Campbell's recent bout with persimmon and balata to make the case for the poor, beleaguered golf ball's innocence in the bastardization of courses around the club. He says the numbers suggest shafts are the real culprit and who can argue with that?

It is worth theorizing that a larger percentage of the improvement might just be attributed to the shaft's effect on swing speed. Today's modern shaft usually weighs 75 grams or less, about half what the steel shaft on the MacGregor Byron Nelson driver weighed. But the 200 grams on the end of that shaft is the same force on today's heads, although the weight is better distributed. The faster you can swing that mass, the more it can improve your distance. Moreover, shaft technology has elevated to the point where the same stability that better players with faster swings found in steel shafts years ago is nearly the same today in graphite shafts that weigh half as much.

And...

Though the USGA has been conducting research on shorter golf balls for the last three years, that project has not yielded any announcement of a proposed rollback in the golf ball in the way groove performance was rolled back late last year. Rugge simply says today that the research project is "ongoing." For now, Rugge believes that current research suggests that the ball need not be singled out as the root cause of distance in the modern game.

"Our testing showed me that the majority of PGA Tour distance increases attributable to equipment have likely come from changes in the driver, not the ball," he said.

It's not clear whether one set of numbers and a few swings through history on the range of a PGA Tour event last week confirm that idea or call it into question. But isolating the effect to either club or ball seems impossible. Rather, today's club-ball system seems to exceed the sum of its parts.

Which is why all of the calls to alter the golf ball have been made. If you have to pick between club and ball for the simplest way to make courses relevant while restoring elements of skill, isn't it just easier to alter the ball? That doesn't make it guilty in a court of a law, just a victim of convenience.

"In fairness, over the last couple of years we have started to see that the USGA, R&A and Augusta are starting to see the picture."

Interviewed by Robin Barwick using questions questions from Mark Reason, there was an entertaining round table to promote the Ballantine’s Championship. The participants were Paul McGinley, Ernie Els, Henrik Stenson and Fred Couples. Plenty of highlights, including talk of Bethpage, golf in the Olympics, Stanford Financial (awkward!) and this technology exchange:

In the arena of equipment technology, is the golf ball flying too far now?

McGinley: I think the horse has bolted. The problem should have been addressed 10 years ago, when the scientists that the USGA and R&A had were not as good as the ones the manufacturers had. The manufacturers basically broke through the gates and went too far with the ball.

Els: I am against stopping technology, but people also need to be careful how they set-up golf courses. Look at Oakland Hills last year [in the US PGA Championship]. Some of those fairways were un-hittable. Look at Shinnecock Hills. A great golf course, but they were scared of the technology and scared of a low score winning, and they screwed up the golf course.

Stenson: Longer is not always better.

Els: Exactly. They need to be careful not to take a great, classic golf course, and just for the sake of stopping someone going low, screwing up the golf course.

McGinley: In fairness, over the last couple of years we have started to see that the USGA, R&A and Augusta are starting to see the picture. Augusta was great this year, Torrey Pines was great last year and Birkdale was great last year, so they are starting to get it now. Mistakes have been made in the past though, no doubt about it.

Stenson does point out that not everyone thought Birkdale was so great last year. But more importantly, it is interesting that when this topic comes up, almost no one suggests that improved athleticism was the cause. Even better, you have folks like Els openly making the connection between over-the-top setups and poor regulatory practices. Just a few years ago only select players like McGinley understood the connection. 

"The issue is that few older courses are capable of staging the Canadian Open."

Thanks to reader John for Lorne Rubenstein look at all of the reasons why the Royal Canadian Golf Association can't consider some classic venues for the Canadian Open. Actually, there's only one reason in Lorne's view.

Last week's announcement that the RBC Canadian Open will return to Shaughnessy Golf and Country Club in Vancouver in 2011 should be cause for celebration. After all, it's a classic old course, the kind tour players say they love. And it will mean the tournament will have been played at a grand spot two years in a row. (St. George's in Toronto will be the venue in 2010.) So why did I feel some sadness upon hearing the news? It had nothing to do with the choice of course or the Royal Canadian Golf Association's commitment to taking the tournament, as often as possible, to traditional layouts. It had everything to do with what's happened in the world of pro golf tours.

The issue is that few older courses are capable of staging the Canadian Open. This is because the United States Golf Association and the R&A dropped the ball in allowing the golf ball to go so far that it's made superb courses that have held the Canadian Open obsolete for the tournament.

Here's something even the governing bodies understand, without telling it to some of the modern masters to their faces.

At least the RCGA realizes this. Its executive director, Scott Simmons, made it clear last week during the Shaughnessy announcement that the commitment isn't to a fixed rotation, but simply to quality courses. He said that could include new courses, but the message remains clear that tour players prefer traditional layouts.

"We have been on a journey of renewal," then-RCGA president Andrew Cook said last June, when it was announced St. George's would play host to the 2010 Canadian Open. "We want the tournament to get back to the stature it once held on the world stage."

The RCGA is trying. But it would have a better chance of reaching the goal if the courses of the past weren't so ill-suited to the tournament game and demands of the present.

Such are the unintended consequences of "progress."

Well they could look to the R&A solution: proudly alter the courses.